RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #66 (Allen Iverson)

[Owly]

Welcome aboard Cavsfan, I think I've been sitting on English longer than Trex was on Parish, lol.

Muck this opinion into the trash as you see fit, but I'd suggest that you ***consistently being way ahead of the pitch on English might be an indication that you're simply too high on him.

***2014 project: even though English got in almost historically early at #54 that year [ties his best finish in the last 15 years: he'd been #55 in 2006, #54 in 2008, #56 in 2011], you were still voting for him 9 places in advance of that finish.
2017 project: You began voting for him 21 places ahead of where he actually went.
2020 project: You began voting for him 12 places ago in this one. No one else even had him as one of his alternate votes until 7 places ago [though that poster subsequently down-graded his rank of by at least one spot]. Another poster wouldn't show up with English as an alternate [3rd vote] until 5 places ago.


I mean, I'm WAY over on one end of the spectrum in how much I value longevity, and I know this. Consequently, I know going into these projects that I'm going to be ahead of the pitch on players like Karl Malone, John Stockton, Jason Kidd, and Robert Parish; I can usually even predict roughly how far ahead of the consensus I'm going to be on them.

But again: it's not a surprise, and I know exactly WHAT aspect of my criteria is creating the difference.


If you're so consistently on an island with English for such a long period of time [even longer than I am with guys like Parish], and cannot identify the reason other than I'm just higher on him than others......idk; either you're off or the ENTIRE rest of the forum is.

I'm on the opposite side. Something tells me I'm going to be voting Bill Walton in at #100

Seems like you scared the other Bill Walton bloke off, might be time when Bill Walton can't make the top 100 anymore.

He wasn't in in '14 either (but 47 in '11), depends on who your back end voters are and the ranking methodology split discussed (plus related issues over accounting for availability/injuries) makes him more volatile.

Walton was discussed in the back end of '14 (99-100) but primarily in response to a non-voter.

[Dutchball97]

The first 30-40 spots we're mostly looking at players who peaked high, had sustained primes, good overall longevity, plenty of play-off success etc but after that you get guys who have only some of those things. I find myself shuffling the guys with traction around because some careers are so different it's difficult to confidently say what is more valuable. I really didn't expect Nate Thurmond to show up on the list untill like the 90-100 range because he doesn't fit the criteria I'm looking for but at the same time I can't say there is no argument for him at #65 because he does also have things other candidates don't.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Allen Iverson
Vote 2 - Alex English
Vote 3 - Tracy McGrady

The Rest

Unseld
Bobby Jones
Parker
Giannis
Moncrief
Rasheed
Jokic
Walton

At this point in the project, Iverson's durability is pretty impressive to look at. He played 40+ MPG in 11 of his first 12 seasons, leading the league in MPG 7 times in that span. From 99-08 he got to the line 9.8 times per game with a FT rate of .417. His body really took a beating and it didn't deter him from attacking the rim consistently. His middling playoff success certainly falls on him some, but those sixers teams didn't feature world beater rosters either. The fit with melo later in his career was less than ideal.

Iverson has to be one of the best examples of a player who would've benefited from playing more recently. It isn't a coincidence that his most efficient seasons came at the end of his prime when hand checking rules changed. From 05-08 he put up 29.1 PPG on 54.6% TS, posting above league avg TS% in 3 of those 4 seasons. He added 3.3 RPG, 7.4 APG and 2.1 SPG in that span. His shooting from 16-23' in his first 5 seasons (42.3%) also suggests he'd be able to adapt to volume 3PT shooting in this era. Add in better spacing and more friendly officiating for the offense and you can see iverson thriving in today's game.

[Owly]

Vote 1 - Allen Iverson
Vote 2 - Alex English
Vote 3 - Tracy McGrady

The Rest

Unseld
Bobby Jones
Parker
Giannis
Moncrief
Rasheed
Jokic
Walton

At this point in the project, Iverson's durability is pretty impressive to look at. He played 40+ MPG in 11 of his first 12 seasons, leading the league in MPG 7 times in that span. From 99-08 he got to the line 9.8 times per game with a FT rate of .417. His body really took a beating and it didn't deter him from attacking the rim consistently. His middling playoff success certainly falls on him some, but those sixers teams didn't feature world beater rosters either. The fit with melo later in his career was less than ideal.

Iverson has to be one of the best examples of a player who would've benefited from playing more recently. It isn't a coincidence that his most efficient seasons came at the end of his prime when hand checking rules changed. From 05-08 he put up 29.1 PPG on 54.6% TS, posting above league avg TS% in each of those 4 seasons. He added 3.3 RPG, 7.4 APG and 2.1 SPG in that span. His shooting from 16-23' in his first 5 seasons (42.3%) also suggests he'd be able to adapt to volume 3PT shooting in this era. Add in better spacing and more friendly officiating for the offense and you can see iverson thriving in today's game.

This isn't quite true (I think).

Iverson's TS add in '07 is -3.5 indicating very slightly below average TS ('05 he's slightly above for +10.9; +34.6 in '06 and +103.9 - his third greatest difference from 0 in his career - in '08).

[penbeast0]

Does it matter in the slightest whether a player would thrive in other eras? Whether Steph Curry or Reggie Miller would be All-NBA before the 3 point line? Whether Michael Jordan or Shaq would be as effective today in a 3 point heavy offense?

And, Iverson shot decently on mid to long 2's but his game was slashing. He showed an unwillingness to change it. So, while he would be more individually effective today with greater space, his teams might be even worse off compared to others in this era with a much greater percentage of the team's shots being less efficient Iverson drives v. 3 pointers and open shots created by a motion offense.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #25:

Allen Iverson - 4 (Clyde Frazier, Dutchball97, Hal14, trex_8063)
Alex English - 2 (Cavsfansince84, penbeast0)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Tracy McGrady - 1 (sansterre)
Tony Parker - 1 (Odinn21)


9 votes requires five for a majority. So the bottom three are eliminated first, which ghosts all three......

Iverson - 4
English - 2
(ghosted) - 3

So Iverson becomes a default winner, which we'll have to validate vs English. Two of the three ghosted votes favour Iverson over English, making the count 6-3 for Iverson.

I'll get the next one up......

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Allen Iverson
Vote 2 - Alex English
Vote 3 - Tracy McGrady

The Rest

Unseld
Bobby Jones
Parker
Giannis
Moncrief
Rasheed
Jokic
Walton

At this point in the project, Iverson's durability is pretty impressive to look at. He played 40+ MPG in 11 of his first 12 seasons, leading the league in MPG 7 times in that span. From 99-08 he got to the line 9.8 times per game with a FT rate of .417. His body really took a beating and it didn't deter him from attacking the rim consistently. His middling playoff success certainly falls on him some, but those sixers teams didn't feature world beater rosters either. The fit with melo later in his career was less than ideal.

Iverson has to be one of the best examples of a player who would've benefited from playing more recently. It isn't a coincidence that his most efficient seasons came at the end of his prime when hand checking rules changed. From 05-08 he put up 29.1 PPG on 54.6% TS, posting above league avg TS% in each of those 4 seasons. He added 3.3 RPG, 7.4 APG and 2.1 SPG in that span. His shooting from 16-23' in his first 5 seasons (42.3%) also suggests he'd be able to adapt to volume 3PT shooting in this era. Add in better spacing and more friendly officiating for the offense and you can see iverson thriving in today's game.

This isn't quite true (I think).

Iverson's TS add in '07 is -3.5 indicating very slightly below average TS ('05 he's slightly above for +10.9; +34.6 in '06 and +103.9 - his third greatest difference from 0 in his career - in '08).

Thanks, just tired eyes on my part. Will edit.